Disclaimer: Some postings contain other author's material. All such material is used here for fair use and discussion purposes.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Feds to investigate "Duck Dynasty" inspired redneck day at Arizona school

This story reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

-----------------------------
(This is incomprehensible to me, for several reasons. One, what is offensive about being (or pretending to be) a redneck? Two, is offensiveness illegal? Three, why is this a federal case? Four, what specific laws were broken? Read on...)

The U.S. Department of Education plans to investigate a controversial "Redneck Day" celebration two months ago at an Arizona high school.

One Queen Creek High student wore a Confederate flag during the May 1 event, which was inspired by the popular A&E show "Duck Dynasty." Civil rights activists say that created a racially hostile environment. (A flag is hostile? Here is the hostile environment: 


Wikipedia says this about why it is controversial: "The display of the Confederate flag is a highly controversial topic, generally because of disagreement over its symbolism.

"Supporters of the flag view it as a symbol of southern heritage and the independence of the distinct cultural tradition of the South from the North. Some groups use the Southern Cross as one of the symbols associated with their organizations, including groups such as the Ku Klux Klan.

"For some, the flag represents only a past era of southern sovereignty. Some historical societies such as the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy also use the flag as part of their symbols. Some rockabilly fans hold the Confederate flag as their emblem as well."

In other words, it's offensive if I decide it's offensive. So based on that I deem this offensive:


This is also offensive:


I'm pretty sure I don't need a rational reason why I'm offended, I just need to be offended. So call in the Feds!)

The Rev. Jarrett Maupin (Who? A reverend from the Department of Education? What about separation of church and state? This guy, appearing in the article like Melchizedek appearing to Abraham, has a storied past, which eminently qualifies him to pronounce judgment on the school district. Googling his name yields a veritable treasure trove of hyper sensitive racial watchdogism, race baiting, and outrageous antics. Can anyone guess in advance what his decision will be?) says the DOE will "determine the remedy, including moderating conversations between school administrators and civil rights community leaders to shape new policy and racism prevention measures." (Oh, I get it. The school is in trouble for allowing free speech.)

The DOE's Office for Civil Rights says "the display of the Confederate flag concerns rights protected by the First Amendment." (Well yeah. But what specifically is the concern? That people are expressing their first amendment rights improperly?)

But it also says in a letter that the investigation's scope "will be limited to whether a racially hostile environment was created due to language and actions that were not protected by the First Amendment." (Get that? The Department of Education, which somehow has the authority to interpret the Constitution - Supreme Court, step aside - is going to decide if someone is protected by the First Amendment? It wasn't long ago that I commented on a similar abrogation of authority, also regarding a government agency deigning to tell us what and what doesn't constitute free speech. Who the hell do these people think they are?)

The day was supposed to prompt kids at Queens Creek High School to dress like members of the reality show cast, but instead it was seen as offensive when students arrived at the school in stereotypical clothing. (And that is enough to bring in the Feds to determine if this was protected speech. Amazing.)

Tom Lindsey, superintendent of the Queen Creek Unified School District told azcentral.com that the day was meant to satirize “Duck Dynasty” and boost school spirit.

Still, some students and local families were offended by the dress-up day, something Lindsey apologized for shortly after the incident.

Lindsey said that the student wearing a confederate flag was pulled aside and asked to change clothes.

“It was no ill intent,” Lindsey told the Arizona publication. “We apologize to any people who, because of the word (redneck), were offended,” he said. (Too little, too late. There's blood in the water and the hysterical permanently offended tyrants are taking you down, sir. You would have done better if you'd told them to piss off and get a hobby. If they're going to be mad, at least give them a reason.

We're certainly lucky some kid didn't try to pray.)

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

A New Testament survey of grace scriptures

This is a chronicle of nearly every Scripture in the New Testament that mentions the word "grace." I left out Paul's greetings and other mentions that were duplicates.

I am a bit overwhelmed by these Scriptures, because grace is so much bigger than I thought. The conventional definition, "the undeserved favor of God," is not only inadequate, but totally wrong. As I read and reread these Scriptures, I concluded that grace is really the indwelling Holy Spirit who empowers, corrects, teachers, reproves, and sanctifies us. 

Try to read these Scriptures by substituting the phrase "the undeserved favor of God" in the place of the word grace, and see how wrong this definition is.
-----------------------------

Lk. 2:40 And the child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.

Jn. 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Jn. 1:16 From the fulness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another.

Jn. 1:17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Ac. 4:33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.

Ac. 6:8 Now Stephen, a man full of God’s grace and power, did great wonders and miraculous signs among the people.

Ac. 11:23 When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts.

Ac. 13:43 When the congregation was dismissed, many of the Jews and devout converts to Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who talked with them and urged them to continue in the grace of God.

Ac. 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.

Ac. 14:26 From Attalia they sailed back to Antioch, where they had been committed to the grace of God for the work they had now completed.

Ac. 15:11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”

Ac. 15:40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the brothers to the grace of the Lord.

Ac. 18:27 When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed.

Ac. 20:24 However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me — the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace.

Ac. 20:32 “Now I commit you to God and to the word of his grace, which can build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Ro. 1:5 Through him and for his name’s sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith.

OBAMACARE OUTREACH - Critics pan health care enrollment campaign

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------


WASHINGTON (MCT)—Amid a resurgent effort by critics to attack (Note the pejorative language. Critics are "attacking" the law. Its characterizations like this that betray the bias of the writer, a person who is supposed to be objective.) 

the 2010 health care law, the Obama administration and its allies are focusing on getting millions of Americans enrolled in coverage next year and making sure the new state health insurance exchanges will be ready for open enrollment in October. (Once again we note the way the issue is presented. The Obama administration is hard at work, you see. They're "focused" on helping millions of people, despite the environment of hostility perpetrated by critics. Oh, can you imagine? Those evil critics standing in the way of such noble efforts? Yes, the Obama administration is so courageous, so caring, so compassionate!)  

But convincing a skeptical public to heed the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate” will be a major challenge when the bulk of the health care overhaul is fully implemented next year. (They've been trying to convince a skeptical public for more than three years. And what a curious choice of words. "Heed," to pay attention. We haven't been convinced to "heed" the individual mandate. 

What does that mean, anyway?

So aren't paying attention, and apparently are ignorant of the wonderful features of obamacare. We aren't listening to our heroes and benefactors who care so much for us. We aren't heeding their wonderful programs. Can we ask, is this a news article or a press release?) 

Polls show that not only do most Americans dislike the provision that requires them to get health coverage or pay a fine for noncompliance, but they’re also confused about what coverage they should get, how to get it and how much it will cost. (Ok, so here's a rather weak acknowledgement that the majority of people do not like obamacare. The reporter attempts to gloss over that by linking the skepticism to confusion. But the dislike of a specific feature of the plan does not mean that people must understand the arcane details of other aspects of it. In actual fact, the more we learn about the plan, the more we find that's wrong with it, Just as Nancy Pelosi promised.)

To better inform people of their options, nearly 1,200 community health centers will use $150 million in federal grants to help spread the word. Florida Community Health Centers, for instance, which operates 10 facilities in central Florida, will use its $173,000 grant to hire three full-time benefit counselors and an outreach worker who’ll seek out the uninsured for coverage. (In other word, drum up business.)

“We go to beauty shops, barbershops, day cares, laundromats, churches and any other houses of worship. That’s where people congregate,” said Molly Ferguson, the centers’ director of program development. (Why is the separation of church and state not a problem here?)

These and other federal grants will help with outreach efforts, but congressional Republicans’ refusal to provide more money for a public awareness campaign (actually, a propaganda campaign) has made the enrollment effort more difficult. The health care law was passed without Republican support.

Private administration-friendly organizations such as Enroll America, Young Invincibles and Organizing for America (No label applied, unlike a couple of paragraphs down, where we will find the "conservative" label.) will be counted on to help the administration try to win the health law messaging war. But opponents of the law have been on the offensive.

A recent analysis by Kantar Media, which tracks political spending, found that critics of the Affordable Care Act have spent $400 million on television ads since the law passed, compared with just $75 million by its supporters. A $1 million ad campaign against the law by Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political group funded by billionaire Kansas industrialists Charles and David Koch, is airing online and on cable networks in Ohio and Virginia. (The eeeevil Koch brothers. Can we ask why the people behind Enroll America, Young Invincibles, and Organizing for America are not identified?) 

“We feel it is important to educate Ohioans on the true consequences of government intrusion into the private health care decisions of families,” said Eli Miller, the Ohio director of Americans for Prosperity.

The conservative Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom has launched a national “Refuse to Enroll” campaign that urges people not to buy coverage through the exchanges.

The council, which describes itself as a “free-market resource” for health care issues, says the cost of coverage on the exchanges might be unaffordable for many, even with premium subsidies. The group claims, among other reasons, that the exchanges will offer only limited choices of physicians and hospitals and that they require considerable paperwork to enroll. It likens them to “Medicaid for the middle class.”

“We encourage Americans to get involved and make sure that the exchanges fail and, as a result, Obamacare also fails,” said Twila Brase, the group’s president and co-founder.

In response, the left-leaning (A soft label. They only "lean" left.) Americans United for Change will launch a “Hands Off Obamacare” ad campaign on cable news stations beginning next week.

In the face of dwindling funds and a powerful negative messaging machine, the Obama administration and a variety of public and private stakeholders will try to enroll an estimated 7 million people for coverage on the exchanges from October to March.

(If obamacare is so wonderful, why do people need to be persuaded? Why the need for promotion? And after three years, why are people still confused? And why is it surprising to the writer that opponents have actually spent money to oppose it?) 

Friday, July 26, 2013

LIBERTARIAN PARTY PLATFORM - As adopted in Convention, May 2012, Las Vegas, Nevada

There's a lot to like here. I don't agree with everything, but in an age of government running roughshod over our rights, these concepts are becoming more important, relevant and mainstream.
-----------------
PREAMBLE
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.

STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

City aims to make building permit process easier - By Amanda Ricker

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------
The city of Bozeman’s Building Department is getting a little more customer friendly. (We are not customers! We are taxpayers. A customer relationship is a voluntary one. Customers choose to make their purchases as they see fit, but not with government. Government is a coercive relationship. One must get a building permit only from government, there are no other choices.)

City Manager Chris Kukulski said this week that the department is now open during lunchtime and will soon have software to allow people to check the status of building permits online. He said the department will also allow people to schedule inspections before or after business hours upon request. (This is what constitutes being "customer friendly?" No streamlining of procedures? No relaxing of requirements? No improvements in workflow? So in other words, the onerous processes imposed by the city are exactly the same, we just have more access to it. Amazing.)

Previously, the department was closed from noon to 1 p.m. Now, it’s open Mondays from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesdays through Fridays from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Chief Building Official Bob Risk said the city will install a computer program in a month or so that will allow people to check the status of building permits online.

He said contractors will be given a pin number, and with a click of a mouse they’ll be able to see whether they passed an inspection and what went wrong. (*Sigh* It must be wonderful to be able to access that much more easily how the government is preventing you from proceeding on your building project.)

This fall, Risk said the city hopes to have additional computer systems that allow inspectors to upload their inspection results directly from the field. (Which will be nice for inspectors, I suppose. But how is this "customer friendly? And by the way, the private sector has had remote connection capabilities for decades.)

The typical turnaround time for a request for a building permit is about three weeks, Risk said. (This is a different topic. The "customer friendly" aspects touted earlier have to do with existing permits, not the issuance of new permits. But can you imagine? All you want to do is get the piece of paper that says you can start building. 30 seconds to type in the builder info and where the project is. Another 13 seconds for the laser printer to print it out. Where is the rest of the three weeks being spent?) The city had been so busy it was sending out some inspections to a hired third party. (Swerving into yet another topic, we find out the inspectors have been very busy. But the two changes mentioned above do not address this problem.)

“But we’re kind of caught back up now,” Risk said.

From April to June, the city issued 362 permits for building projects valued at $6.6 million. Last year during the same time, the city issued 1,018 permits for projects valued at $7.9 million. (But the inspectors are busy, with only a third of last year's workload.)

Amanda Ricker can be reached at aricker@dailychron icle.com or 582-2628. She is on Twitter at @amandaricker.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Gun control advocates hold rally in Helena - Matt Gouras

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold. Video found here.
--------------------

HELENA — Supporters of expanded background checks for gun buyers brought their multi-state tour to Montana on Tuesday to ask Democratic U.S. Sen. Max Baucus to change his stance and help Congress reconsider the issue.

But the small rally at the Capitol (Although the writer notes it was small, he doesn't get around to telling us until a few paragraphs later that the number was "a few dozen." Given the insignificant participation, we might ask the writer why he reported on the event at all. We could at least ask him to count the attendees instead of providing us with the inelegant "a few dozen." 

Here's a picture of the "few dozen," more like "a handful of supporters" to be honest:



Of greater interest to me was the composition of the crowd. How many were Montanans?  How many were were activitists? How many were politicians? In other words, in this sparsely attended rally, how many people were there solely to prop up the event in order to enhance its image?) didn’t seem to budge the state’s senior senator, who is retiring at the end of 2014.

A group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns, founded and funded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, organized the event as part of a tour through 25 states. Another rally is scheduled for Thursday in Missoula.

The organization has also aired television advertisements in Montana and other states represented by U.S. senators who in April voted against a failed bill to expand background checks for gun purchases.

State Rep. Amanda Curtis of Butte told the crowd to stand up for “reasonable” gun control legislation. (Once again I note the tendency of the Left to approach their issues as if today is a new day and nothing has ever been done before. Montana law alone has dozens of firearms laws, let alone the Feds. There are already many laws restricting firearms, but Ms. Curtis wants more, under the smokescreen of it being "reasonable.") The Democrat — who is considering a run for the U.S. House — says she thinks the state is largely supportive off the idea.

“I don’t think in any way it is an unreasonable or outrageous thing to ask,” Curtis said in an interview after the event.

Curtis said during the rally that when she was 17, her brother killed himself with a gun at a party playing Russian roulette. (So her position is based on an emotional response to something that happened to her, an event that has nothing to do with "reasonable" gun control legislation. Her trauma, while tragic, is no basis to make determinations about what is "reasonable.") She argued more can be done to prevent gun deaths, and told a few dozen gathered at the rally to stand up to fictitious counter arguments. “When someone says the government is going to come and take your guns, that is crazy. That is not going to happen,” Curtis said. (It's one thing to assert this, but another thing entirely to engage in systematic restraint of government to ensure it won't happen. What basis do we have to believe her? Does she have a track record of protecting the ownership of guns? Besides an empty reassurance coupled with a pejorative describing her opponents as "crazy," how does her assurance give us any confidence at all?

As far as it "not going to happen, it does in Connecticut, New York, Indiana, and many other places. Indeed, in some jurisdictions it isn't legal to even possess a firearm. Yet Ms. Curtis patronizingly calls people crazy for thinking firearms seizure could happen here.) “We wouldn’t ever let that happen.” (Who is "we," and why should we believe this? Quite simply, it isn't for her to decide what can happen or not happen regarding the possession of firearms. "Shall not be infringed" is pretty simple.)
A retired California police officer who now lives in Montana said expanded background checks are needed to ensure there are no loopholes allowing guns to fall into the hands of violent offenders, the mentally ill or others who shouldn’t own them. (There are always loopholes. It is naive to think otherwise. It is beyond naive to think that simply passing another law will solve the problem.) 

“It’s a moral issue, not a political issue,” said Scott Swanson. (Which translated, means it's a political issue. The hubris of the Left knows no bounds. Who is Mr. Swanson to tell us what morality we should follow? And why is it now permissible to encode morality into law? I thought we couldn't legislate morality?)

U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., voted in favor of the failed measure. Although it never reached the House, the state’s lone congressman, Republican Steve Daines, has said he opposes it.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns argued the issue could be brought back up in the Senate.

Baucus’ office, in a statement, pointed out the senator has supported other measures such as increased funding for mental health care and improved school safety.

“At the same time, Max understands that what works in New York or California doesn’t necessarily work for Montana. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, Max voted to boost gun prosecution in inner cities and high-crime areas without adding burdens on law-abiding folks in Montana,” said spokeswoman Jennifer Donohue. “The fact is we aren’t enforcing the laws already on the books — under the Obama Administration federal weapons prosecutions have fallen to the lowest levels in over a decade.” (Wow, a startlingly honest and direct statement from the Senator's office. I guess the Senator's impending retirement has released him from toeing the line imposed by the democrat power structure. The fact that he finds himself in opposition to the talking points promulgated by the Leftwing elites makes one wonder about how much of his career was spent kowtowing to things he did not believe.)

Monday, July 22, 2013

Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life - FB conversation

I posted this on FB: 




B.R.: Trick a man into thinking you care about his fish, even though the majority of your policy actions serve to take away his fish, and he'll vote Republican for life.

Me: You should know by now that I am not a repub, B.R. And by the way, the Left really does care about some else's fish, particularly if they think it's too big. Functionally speaking, the policies of the Left seem to indicate the fish belongs to them, not to the fellow who caught it.

B.R.: I'm just havin' fun with your fun. And I don't take you for a member of the Tea Party, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, functionally speaking, the policies of Left COULD totally be interpreted that way. However, logically speaking, their policies would indicate that it matters less who caught the fish and more how fairly the fish is distributed. I'm starting to understand how necessary it is that there are both liberal and conservative voices in the spending discussion. I'm just always going to lean toward the people and policies that care about the whole and not just themselves.

Me: There is only one version of fair. My fish, not yours. Therefore, I decide how best to use it. You have no say.

Policies do not exhibit care. They force people to do things. No policy that takes from what belongs to one and gives it to another is fair, compassionate, or just by any definition.

B.R.: Imperfect as man is, policies can be fair and compassionate.

It sounds to me like your version of fair, in your last comment, applies to things that are taken unjustly, which I do not believe tax collection to be. Taxes are a necessary and inevitable part of a market capitalism-based democracy. There is already a model that dictates who pitches in how much, and what things that collective pool is spent on. I think we have a lot of improvement to make in the fairness of who pitches in how much, and the fairness of who benefits from the spending. If you only care about destroying the tax collection system, then maybe we could talk more about destroying market capitalism. That'd be two birds with one stone.

Me: Only people can be compassionate. Inanimate objects cannot.

Tax collection is not the issue. It's what happens after the taxes are collected. If the revenue is used to operate the government, that is justified. If it is taken from one and given to another, that is theft. It's immoral and unjust to take someone's property and give it to another.

B.R.: Ok. And can you specify which government spending you consider theft? Just for my future knowledge in talks like these?

Me: "If it is taken from one and given to another, that is theft."

B.R.: Ugh, ok, clarification would help our discourse. By your general definition, I could say that Social Security is theft, but I could also say ANY tax incentive for businesses is theft. I could also say that congressional salaries are theft. Or FEMA emergency response budgets. Or USPS. Or subsidized school lunches. So where do YOU actually draw the line?

Me: SS was promulgated as a "savings" plan for which you would receive your benefits when you retire. That would not be a wealth transfer. However, it is in practice a wealth transfer (because the Trust Fund is empty), with workers paying for the benefits of retirees.

Tax incentives for business does not transfer wealth any more than any feature of the tax code would do so. You pick out this one because it's a favorite ogre of the Left. But beyond that, business taxes are passed on in the price of the product. Only individuals pay taxes, businesses do not. So in actual fact, your scenario works in reverse of what you thought it did.

Congressional salaries are constitutionally provided for. There is no transfer of wealth because no one is receiving an unearned benefit at the expense of another.

FEMA funds are wealth transfers, unless the payment was made to those who had flood insurance policies. I object to flood insurance on other grounds, however.

USPS is specifically provided for in the constitution. Also, there is no wealth transfer occurring.

Subsidized school lunches are providing an unearned benefit. Look how this is constructed. There is no possible way to evaluate the issue apart from emotional content. Starving children dressed in rags, barefoot and poor. Who could object to this kind of emotional manipulation?

My line is drawn quite simply. Any government policy which gives cash and prizes to someone who did not earn it is evil.

B.R.: Which government policies give cash and prizes to someone who did not earn it?

Me: You can answer this yourself.

B.R.: You're missing my point...I'd like to know which government policies you consider theft, so that in future conversations, I don't have to put words in your mouth or misinterpret you.

Me: No, really, I'm serious. You can grok this yourself based on my presentation. Anyone, rich or poor, who gets something without earning it is receiving the fruit of someone else's labor.

B.R.: I just think you've got a boogie man in your head. Your explanations of each program/line item I listed was very helpful, but I don't see evidence of the vast injustice you're holding onto. Are we just talking about welfare? Unemployment benefits? Either there's an elephant in the room, or a monster in the closet.

Me: I'll make it easy. Any government program you would label as compassionate most likely is a wealth transfer.

B.R.:  That certainly makes it easy for YOU! Haha...

Me: I'm not trying to be evasive. I think the best way to understand a proposition is to act on in like you believe it yourself as you research.

B.R.: Sure, and I'll try your method. I'm just saying, it IS pretty easy to automatically reject any claim of political compassion and re-label it as wealth transfer.

Me: I do reject any claim of political compassion. It's not compassion to help people with someone else's money.

B.R.: And I don't really view it as compassion, I view it as fairness. I understand that many people don't want to see their money go toward the health or benefit of others, but many of us do.

Me: No, no, no. You don't understand at all. A very few people don't want to help others. Most people do help others. Many people help a lot. NONE of this is anyone's business, let alone government's. You're not entitled to this information to determine your idea of fairness and impose it through government action.

People choose to help other people. They decide who, how much, and when to give. They decide to help and they write the check. They decide. Their choice. Government takes choice away. Government chooses for itself. And you call that fair?

B.R.: I decide with my vote and my complicity. I'm part of the government because I give and take from its programs. The government is made up of people. And again, I'm not just talking about charity, I'm talking about the socio-economic playing field as a whole.

Me: Your vote and your complicity is exactly the same as two wolves and a sheep marooned on a desert island, voting to decide what to have for dinner.

B.R.: Wait...which one's the wolf and which one's the sheep?

Me: The majority vote deciding how much to take from the minority.

B.R.: That's a little skewed. The current socio-political system fucks over the poor more than it fucks over the rich. I'm suggesting that the system can change, to be balanced more fairly.

Me: It's not poor vs rich. I didn't even mention who was rich and who was poor. You are so invested in your template that you can't see past it.

It's government vs the people.

Me: I now see that you actually do care about a man's fish, simply to determine if it's fair. If not, you seem to dell justified in taking it away. Fair to everyone, except the real owner of the fish. Fairness to him is irrelevant, of course.

B.R.: Perhaps our main impasse here is that you see government as separate from the people, and I don't think it's that black-and-white.

Me: A distinction without a difference. What is relevant is who is exerting power over whom. When government forces your choices over who gets your money, that's tyranny.

B.R: You consider government an external entity, separate from people, which exerts power to achieve its means. I consider government an interdependent system, comprised of people, which executes agreed-upon policies to achieve its means.

Me: The exertion of power, yes, you have it. A few smokey backroom deals, and ergo, a policy, used to exert power over others, with or without their consent.

Friday, July 19, 2013

Bernanke: Congress could do more to help economy

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------

   WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Thursday that Congress could do more to help the U.S. economy this year (Noooooooo! Don't do any more! We can't stand any more "help!") but instead has focused on reducing the federal deficit. (Notice the either/or equation, as if the two were mutually exclusive. But in fact, if the government would reduce the deficit by cutting government spending, the economy would improve, and it would improve dramatically.)

   During his second appearance before lawmakers this week, Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee that the Fed’s low interest rate policies have carried “an awful lot of the burden” to drive economic growth. Fed officials would have been very happy to “share that burden” with Congress, he added. (No mention of the fact that the Fed is increasing the money supply by $85 billion a month, which devalues the currency and suppresses the economy.)

   The Fed chairman made the comments only after Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., prodded him to evaluate Congress’s role in supporting the economy after the recession.

   Bernanke said lawmakers have spent too much energy on implementing tax increases and spending cuts when the economy was growing only modestly. Those actions could end up reducing economic growth by 1.5 percentage points this year, he has said. (Of course he has no way of knowing this since we do not have a control subject to compare. More to the point, what spending cuts? There have been no spending cuts. The sequester rolled back $80 billion of spending increase, but no spending has been cut at all.)

   But Bernanke said it was not the Fed’s role to threaten to raise interest rates or take other actions if Congress did not follow more appropriate policies.

   “I don’t think it’s my place or the Federal Reserve’s place to try to force Congress to come to any particular outcome,” Bernanke said. (Whew. I was worried there. A bunch of non-elected quasi-governmental appointments don't have the power to dictate to Congress? So what is he doing there, telling jokes? Picking his nose?)

   Corker said Congress has grown too dependent on the Fed’s efforts to drive growth, instead of taking action to help. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., was even blunter.

   “We have let you down,” he told Bernanke. “The kindergarten of Congress has let you down by not doing the things to create confidence in the business community.”

   Most of Bernanke’s comments about Fed policy were in line with testimony he gave Wednesday to the House Financial Services Committee. Bernanke said the Fed’s efforts to boost the economy remained tied to the job market’s health and inflation.

   There is no “preset course” for the Fed’s $85 billion-a-month bond buying program, he said. Any change will depend on the economy’s performance. (Here is the money supply increase I mentioned earlier. He thinks it's helping the economy, but it's devaluing the currency. But we need to note that the Fed is the entity that controls the money supply. It directs the Treasury to increase or decrease the amount of currency in circulation. So in this instance, it is directing the Treasury to increase the money supply by $85 billion/mo. 

Note how he phrases it. The Fed is "buying" bonds. Where did it get the money? Well, from the treasury. The Fed tells the treasury to increase the money supply, that increase is delivered to the Fed, which uses the money to purchase bonds. The Fed is buying bonds with currency from the treasury!)

   He also said that the Fed could hold its benchmark short-term interest rate near zero even after unemployment falls below 6.5 percent. One reason the Fed might consider keeping the rate near zero longer is if inflation fails to move closer to the Fed’s 2 percent target rate.

   Another would be if the decline in unemployment is caused by people leaving the workforce. The government counts people as unemployed only if they are actively looking for a job.

   The Fed’s low interest rate policies have spurred a stock market rally and encouraged more borrowing and spending. (The Fed has kept interest rates extremely low since the Bush administration. Suddenly, this practice is spurring the stock market? Really? And who is doing the "borrowing and spending," and why is that good?)

   Bernanke was delivering what could be his final semiannual economic report to Congress. Many senators echoed comments made by House members in praising Bernanke for his service during the 2008 financial crisis and Great Recession. (Whatever. I think his policies have prolonged the downturn and destroyed the wealth of millions of middle class families. I wonder if anyone has asked him about that?)

Teenage texting, driving too risky - Bozeman Chronicle

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------
(I sometimes wonder if the Left and their willing accomplices in the media are hoping that people forget everything they were told so that the crisis can start anew each day. 

Witness this opinion from the pages of the Bozeman Chronicle, reproduced below. The Chronicle is concerned about a survey given to teens which discovered that those teens are using cell phones while driving. However, the City of Bozeman passed a no-cell-phone ordinance in 2011, which the Chronicle dutifully reported. I subsequently wrote an editorial, which was published in their own pages, in which I demolished the whole idea of a cell phone ordinance. 

So fast forward to present day. The Chronicle, distraught that our children are engaging in risky behavior, writes an editorial that centers on only one of those risky behaviors, a behavior currently illegal in Bozeman. 

Wow, I thought the passage of the law solved the problem. 

Anyway, on to the article.
---------------------------

The latest Youth Risk Behavior Survey shows some encouraging trends in Montana teens’ behavior on things like alcohol consumption and drug use. But one particularly troubling behavior is showing signs of worsening: cell phone use for texting and talking while driving.

The survey is conducted annually by the state Office of Public Instruction and consists of some 99 questions pertaining to all forms of risky behavior.

Statewide, 61 percent of teens report using a cell phone, while 56 percent say they text while driving. Thankfully, Gallatin County teens report lower rates for cell phone use (41 percent) and texting (36 percent) while driving. (We can imply that the cell phone ordinance may have had some effect on teen cell phone use, but we don't know since the survey was for the entire county. Whether it has had any effect on the frequency of injuries or death is anyone's guess.)

But any instances of these activities are too many.

As people nationwide increasingly engage in these dangerous behaviors, troubling statistics are emerging.

According to distraction.gov, a federal government website on distracted driving, 3,331 people died in traffic accidents involving a distracted driver 2011, up from 3,267 the previous year. Another 387,000 were injured in crashes involving distracted drivers in 2011. (Hmm. From the 2011 Chronicle article: "5,474 people died and another 448,000 were hurt in crashes involving all forms of distracted driving in 2009." Notice, those 2009 numbers are much HIGHER than the 2011 numbers. So the 2010 numbers were a slight bump, but 2010 and 2011 are substantially lower than 2009. In other words, the numbers are getting BETTER.)

The use of handheld phones while driving triples the chance of getting in an accident, according to the website. Sending or reading a text takes the driver’s eyes off the road an average of 4.6 seconds, which means that driver is driving blind for the length of a football field if traveling at 55 mph.

Eleven percent of drivers under 20 involved in fatal accidents were distracted when the crash occurred. And for 15 to 19-year-old drivers in fatal crashes, 21 percent of the distracted drivers were distracted by cell phones. (Let's do some math. In fatal accidents, 11% of teens were distracted. Of those, 21% were distracted by cell phones. This means that 2.31% of all fatal teen driver crashes are attributable to cell phone distraction. So what about the other 97.69% of fatal accidents? Is the Chronicle at all concerned about them?)

Twenty-five percent of teens nationwide respond to a text at least once every time they drive. Twenty percent of teens and 10 percent of parents admit they have engaged in lengthy text conversations while driving.

We need to be vigilant about risky teen behavior, and it is encouraging that the survey shows that drinking, smoking and drug use are generally on the decline.

But it’s time to start talking seriously to kids about cell phone use while driving. As these behaviors become more common, they are likely to eclipse many other risky behaviors as causes of teen deaths.

And those deaths are preventable. (Like by passing a cell phone ordinance? Oh, wait...)

Monday, July 15, 2013

Daines’ draconian assault on women - letter by Dan Lourie

I'm going to focus mostly on Mr. Lourie's use of language, something I've done in the past, mostly because his words are not designed to communicate, they manipulate and marginalize. It's this over-the-top rhetoric that makes it difficult to have constructive dialogue, and detracts from my ability and motivation to take him seriously.
--------------------------------

Republicans’ unabashed (Unabashed: Not concealed or disguised; obvious. Mr. Lourie intends to use the word to impugn the Republicans, but he has previously used the word "insidious" [gradual and harmful: slowly and subtly harmful or destructive] to describe the agenda of those with whom he disagrees. Can we ask which it is, unabashed or insidious?) 

war on women was born of reactionary ideology ("Reactionary ideology" simply means that something happened and those who oppose what happened "react" and attempt to change the results of the event)

and fueled by astonishing hubris (Hubris means extreme pride or arrogance or a loss of contact with reality. I think you can start to see how it would be difficult to converse with a person who appears to believe that their ideological opponents are irrational, evil, and bent on destroying peoples' lives) 

that allows men in government (We must note that there are pro-life women in government...)

to presume the right to tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies. (Government, particularly leftists in government, are certainly happy to tell us what we can do with our own bodies all the time, so this hysterical rant rings hollow for me. Helmet laws, sugared drink limits, salt bans, and a thousand other things. But because it is convenient in this case, Mr. Lourie is outraged that some in government want to protect unborn babies) 

That out-of-control agenda (These Republicans are loose cannons, indiscriminately wielding power) 

attacking women was a major factor, through the alienation of both moderates and women, in their party’s overwhelming defeat in last year’s elections. (That's the leftist meme, but there's no evidence for it. Obama won 51% of the vote. There was a net gain of 13 seats by the Democrats in the US House, with Republicans maintaining a 17 seat majority, and the Democrats gained a net two seats in the Senate, with a total of 53 seats. This is hardly "overwhelming.") 

They have clearly failed to learn from that experience, and once again pursue a draconian ("Draconian" meaning great severity, derived from Draco, an Athenian law scribe under whom small offenses had heavy punishments. So can we ask, what laws is he referring to, which would exact heavy legal penalties against women for committing small violations of the law?)

program of assault on the rights of women.

Congressman Steve Daines, ignoring the consensus of Americans across party lines, is out front, helping to lead the charge. He supported the 20-week abortion ban that ignores women’s health and safety, defying even the concerns of moderate Republicans. (A flat out lie. Yes, I called him a liar. He is so deeply inured, so completely all-in, he believes wholesale the leftist line without question. A Huffington Post poll indicate a 59% to 20% split in favor of the 20 week ban. Here are a couple of charts depicting the results:



Mr. Lourie and people like him are clearly the extremists. The great majority of Americans disagree with them, and no amount of histrionics will change that. But of course, this is part of the delusion of the Left. They try to gin up support by pretending to be the majority, reasonable position, but they are in the margins. They try to make up for it by being loud. But these kinds of tactics are being unmasked, sort of like the curtain being pulled open on the wizard of Oz.)

He cosponsored legislation blocking Title X funding to entities providing abortion services, despite 25,000 Montana women relying on health care services, like cancer screenings, from Title X clinics every year. (I automatically doubt the assertion, simply because he is the one making it. But to the point. The fact that an organization is providing cancer screenings is irrelevant if it is also killing unborn babies. Any sane person would oppose the entire organization, despite any good in might happen to do, if it is also doing something incredibly evil) 

He cosponsored the “Blunt Amendment” allowing employers to refuse health care coverage for abortions or “other items or services to which issuer has moral or religious objection.” (Mr. Lourie is apparently pro-choice only when it involves killing babies.) 

He cosponsored a bill to spend over half a billion dollars on abstinence-only sex education. (Leftists hate abstinence. They want as many people boinking as possible in every conceivable combination and situation. The idea is to make sex as free as possible, even to the detriment of other freedoms. In this conversation you will see one of the commenters actually assent to this idea.) 

He cosponsored the Pro Life Act banning federal education funding to institutions with health centers making abortion-related materials available to students. (In other words, all the things Mr. Daines has done are all typical Republican positions. This is what is inflaming Mr. Lourie's hyperbole, that a Republican is actually acting like a Republican and is doing what he promised to do)

Apparently that defeat has not tempered the reprehensible Republican positions on women’s health. Signs, however, point to the party’s inevitable irrelevance if they continue down this path. Former Bush advisor David Frum wrote, “We’ve had four years of self-defeating rage. Now it’s time for cool.”

I hope Congressman Daines is paying attention, (To whom? Mr. Lourie's unhinged name calling? Or to the ones who elected him?) 

and that he begins to represent and promote a system that values the availability of access to adequate health care, including reproductive care, for all women.

Dan Lourie Bozeman  

Friday, July 12, 2013

First Amendment Information - Chesapeake & Ohio Canal

I'm surprised there isn't more outrage at the antics of government. Especially when they cross the line in violation of the Constitution. Maybe people are simply ignorant, or perhaps they feel powerless. I just don't know.

Here is the latest example. I shall reproduce it here in full for fair use and discussion purposes:









































Here's the text, with my comments interspersed in bold:

First Amendment Information 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (This is peculiar. You don't often see a government entity providing the text of some part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights as a prelude to explaining a policy. It's as if they're quoting it to show how they derived their policy, but in actual fact, as we read we will see they violate the very constitutional provision they are quoting.)

Freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly are rights protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. People may exercise these rights in national parks, but the National Park Service still retains its responsibility to protect park resources and prevent conflict among park visitors. (Ok, here we have the justification for their policy. And we can find agreement that the government should have the power to establish policies that prevent vandalism, assault, and other crimes. But keep reading, and note the leap they take.) 

Therefore, the National Park Service establishes guidelines for setting the time, place and manner (number of participants, use of facilities and type of equipment) for the events to occur. (Notice the leap? The power they think they have is not the power to apprehend criminals so that peoples' First Amendment rights are safeguarded, it is to define the characteristics of the constitutionally-protected activity! In other words, the criminals are not the problem, the exercisers of their rights are.)

By law, (That is, because some unconstitutional law says so. Did they miss their own quote, "Congress shall make no law...?") 

the National Park Service has established places in parks where First Amendment activities can be accommodated. (Breathtaking glibness. The rights of the people are not "accommodated." This presumes that the government has some involvement in the granting and defining of rights. But rights do not come from government, they are unalienable. Government has no authority to decide how and when first amendment rights are exercised, except to act to safeguard rights.) 

These areas are visible to the general visiting public without interfering with the public's enjoyment of the park. (Going even farther afield, the government apparently thinks the exercising of First Amendment rights might interfere with "the public's enjoyment of the park." Do you see how this places government in the position of deciding whose rights are important and whose are not? There is no delineation in the exercise of rights that grant power to the government to determine if those expressions are disturbing someone's enjoyment of the park. The founders expressly had things like this in mind that expressing one's self might be offensive!) 

These areas are identified in the Superintendent's Compendium. While the National Park Service regulates aspects of the activity to protect park resources, it never regulates the content of the message. (Um, yeah. Let's just see, shall we?)

Permits are issued for First Amendment activities, but there are no fees or costs, and no insurance is required for the activities.

All requests for similar activities are treated equally. As long as permit criteria and requirements are met, no group wishing to assemble lawfully will be discriminated against or denied the right of assembly.

Types of First Amendment Activities

Religious services or ceremonies
Press conference
Press coverage of breaking news
Voter registration
Collecting signatures on petitions or voter initiatives
Public demonstration, picketing, assembly or rally for expressing opinion and views
Sale or distribution of printed material related to free expression of opinion
Type of Activities that are NOT covered by the First Amendment

Church picnic or social gathering
Wedding ceremonies or receptions
Political fund raiser or other invitation-only political activity or event
Solicitation of donations
Community parades, athletics, or sporting events
Sale of message-bearing clothing, arts and crafts, or similar merchandise

(This is the regulation of content, isn't it? Some forms of peaceable assembly are regulated while others are not. Some forms of speech are regulated while others are not. The government has set itself as arbiter of what constitutes the "proper" exercising of rights. This ought to offend every American citizen. The very fact that the government thinks it CAN, in fact, make a law regarding this is astounding. 

But it's even worse. Notice the phrasing: "Type of Activities that are NOT covered by the First Amendment." It doesn't say, "Types of Activities specially Affected by Park Policy." The statement is an official interpretation of the First Amendment! See, this government website quotes the First Amendment, misinterprets it, and proceeds to violate it. 

Government acts with impunity because the citizenry either can't or won't stop them. Even in court people are told they don't have standing. People are told they cannot exercise their unalienable rights. People are told how they can lead their lives, and then their government are spies on them, listens in on them, and videos and records and observes ad nauseum.)

Many of these activities can be accommodated through the Special Use permit system for which a fee may be charged. Liability insurance is required. Call the Park's Permit Office for assistance and additional information at (301)745-5815.

(*Sigh*  And here's a sign they post...)



Wednesday, July 10, 2013

What rights have we lost? - letter by Vern Smalley

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------
(Mr. Smalley has been discussed in this blog before. If you check those links, you will see that Mr. Smalley is not exactly impressive in his thinking skills. But I seem to remember dealing with him on a personal level several years ago and found him to be thoughtful and an independent thinker. I wonder what happened?

Mr. Smalley is responding to Peter Arnone who was responding to Leonard Pitts. Here's Leonard Pitts' column belowfollowed by Mr. Arnone's letter,  followed by Mr. Smalley's response.)
----------------------------

Leonard Pitts Jr.: We're surrendering our civil liberties

It will not be with guns.

If ever tyranny overtakes this land of the sometimes free and home of the intermittently brave, it probably won't, contrary to the fever dreams of gun rights extremists, involve jackbooted government thugs rappelling down from black helicopters. Rather, it will involve changes to words on paper many have forgotten or never knew, changes that chip away until they strip away precious American freedoms.

It will involve a trade of sorts, an inducement to give up the reality of freedom for the illusion of security. Indeed, the bargain has already been struck.

That is the takeaway from the latest controversy to embroil the Obama administration. Yes, it is troubling to learn the National Security Agency has been running a secret program that reputedly gives it access to Americans' web activity — emails, chats, pictures, video uploads — on such Internet behemoths as Google, Facebook and Apple. Yes, it is troubling to hear that “George W.” Obama has routinely renewed a Bush-era program allowing the feds to more easily graze the “metadata” of phone activity (time and date, numbers dialed, etc.) of millions of Verizon customers.

But what is most troubling is that Americans are not particularly troubled by any of it. According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, most of us — 56 percent — are OK with the monitoring of metadata, a process then-Sen. Joe Biden called “very, very intrusive” back in 2006.

According to the same poll, nearly half — 45 percent — also approve of allowing the government to track email content and other online activity. And 62 percent feel it is more important to investigate terrorist threats than to safeguard the right to privacy. That approval is consistent across party lines.

We are at war against terror, the thinking goes, so certain liberties must be sacrificed. It's the same thing people said when similar issues arose under the Bush regime. It doesn't seem to matter to them that the “war” is open-ended and mostly metaphorical, meaning that we can anticipate no formal surrender point at which our rights will be restored.
---------------------------------------

Mr: Aronone: There is hope for bi-partisanship. In his recent Chronicle column (June 14), non-member of the vast right-wing conspiracy Leonard Pitts made a statement more profound than he realizes. In surrendering our civil liberties, Americans are succumbing to “an inducement to give up the reality of freedom for the illusion of security.” Joining him in his betrayal of leftist principles, fellow non-member Ralph Nader asked, “Has there been a bigger con man in the White House than Barack Obama?”

The fog is lifting. Never in our history has America awakened to the enemy within, Big Brother, our alarmingly over-reaching federal government. Tentacles penetrating and intimidating our institutions and personal lives, it is consolidating the absolute power and control of a totalitarian state. It is no fantasy the nightmare of 1984 is at our doorstep.

We can no longer take for granted the blessings of our “one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.” Therein lies the essence of our conflict: supporters of our Judeo-Christian heritage versus intolerant secularists. That the Obama administration “strongly objects” to an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act guaranteeing religious liberty to our military, is a clear indication of where our government now stands.

Exalted author Karl Marx stated, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Obama and Hillary mentor Saul Alinsky dedicated his book “Rules for Radicals,” to Lucifer. They weren’t talking about mom, apple pie, and the Fourth of July. Nor is megalomaniac billionaire George Soros, the subverter of nations, as he funds a plethora of organizations and progressive politicians undermining our American identity.

Idaho legislator Curtis Bowers made clear in “Agenda: Grinding America Down,” America is at the crossroads. Either we choose the new world order of Soros’ borderless “Open Society,” or defend our nation’s freedom.
--------------------------------
Vern Smalley: Columnist Leonard Pitts, local writer Peter Arnone and others say we’re losing rights and liberties because of our over-reaching government. What are they talking about? (So Mr. Smalley apparently didn't read Mr. Pitts' column. Mr. Pitts clearly delineated a specific concern. He is troubled by the Obama Administration spying on us, and he's even more troubled that a majority of those surveyed aren't troubled by it. Mr. Smalley, apparently unencumbered by actual knowledge of what was written, proceeds to list several things in speculation regarding what Mr. Arnone and Mr. Pitts are talking about.)  

Is being forced to go slower the loss of a liberty? We used to be able to speed along on Bozeman’s North 19th Avenue when it was a dusty trail. Now it’s paved and they allow only up to 40 mph to minimize accidents.

We used to hunt pheasant and grouse starting about where the Dairy Queen is at on North Seventh, and north to the Interstate. But with all those houses, cars and people, we can’t hunt there any more. Is that a “loss of right”?

Snowmobilers were damaging our forests by going off trail. They lost the right to go off trail because our right to have an undamaged forest trumped their right to damage it. We forest lovers didn’t lose a right; we insisted on it. (I suppose he expects answers to these questions on issues neither writer raised. Or maybe he's being flippant, since none of these things have anything to do with rights. 

Mr. Smalley continues, finally getting to the actual issues raised:)

Every time someone Googles to find how to make a bomb, somebody in the government gets interested. This is good, isn’t it? All of us have the right to not fear maniacal bombers. (This is the central issue. But rather than engage it, Mr. Smalley simply assumes it's good that government is watching. However, Mr. Pitts in particular raised several points as to why it's not good, which Mr. Smalley just  ignores. 

Mr. Smalley then makes this astonishing statement: "All of us have the right to not fear maniacal bombers." Mr. Smalley wonders what rights are being compromised, then invents a right, right before our eyes! So he can identify a right being violated. This contradicts his whole premise!

We have a right not to fear, and that right apparently IS being violated. So how does one exercise a right to not fear? What does that even mean? Government is listening to our conversations, so because of that we do not have to fear maniacal bombers? This right presumably trumps the right to be free from warrantless searches, which is specifically named in the Bill of Rights. Does any of this even make sense on any level?)

NSA keeps track of phone numbers of Americans contacted by foreign terrorists. If they find something worthy of investigating, they’ll get a court order (This is what they say, but how do we know they actually do this?) and identify the people involved. Only then will they listen in. (What assurance do we have that this is true?) What essential rights have we lost? (Ok, Mr. Smalley is apparently gaining the ability to focus. He asks a question that is on topic. Mr. Pitts, however, identified the right to privacy already. Is this answer not acceptable to Mr. Smalley? Or is this further evidence that Mr. Smalley did not read Mr. Pitts' column?)

Our government wants to keep guns away from the mentally ill, and to eliminate mega-round ammo clips to help reduce the likelihood of massacres. Our right to live trumps the right of others to take our life away, doesn’t it? (Wow. Mr. Smalley abandons lucidity once again. Note that he does not frame his argument upon something like rights are note absolute, or that government has the power to limit rights. No, he identifies the mentally ill and mega-round clips, equating them with "...the right of others to take our life away." Did you know the mentally ill and those who possess large ammo clips possessed this right, and this right is specifically indentified by these two factors? 

If I may interpret, I think what he attempted to say is "Our right to live trumps the rights of the mentally ill to possess a firearm, and trumps the right to possess large ammo clips." Even these statements fail, because he has himself identified the restriction of rights. This means he disproves his own premise once again.) 

Maybe those who worry about losing rights could share details of their concerns. (Oblivious to the fact that he just succeeded in refuting his own premise, he nevertheless restates it.) I’d really like to understand what all this hand-wringing is about. (I'm going to generalize and say that Mr. Smalley doesn't think there are any rights being infringed, except when they are. He himself has already refuted himself twice.

Since Mr. Smalley is selectively blind when if comes to the violation of right, let's see if these things resonate with him: Occupy Wall Street. Abortion. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Living Wage. Unions. Clean water. Climate change. 

So do any of these topics evoke a feeling that rights are being violated, Mr. Smalley?)

Saturday, July 6, 2013

Limiting use the best way to solve America’s energy need - letter by Monica Lucas

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------
It's interesting that Ms. Lucas is willing to point out a fundamental flaw with renewable energy, but fails to see the flaws with what she proposes. She is quite correct about the delusion of the advocates of renewable energy. I have commented on the delusional state of the Left many times - the way they parrot talking points, the way they march lock-step with whatever orthodoxy is being promulgated today, the way they plunge wholeheartedly into whatever theory or fad their keepers tell them is the truth. 

So, what is Ms. Lucas' flaw? She thinks that energy use reduction is the answer. And she is not talking about per-person reduction, which accounts for population increase. She's talking about an absolute reduction. There are 7 billion living on the planet today, using X amount of energy. When there are 9 billion living on the planet 20 years from now, the total amount of energy use would have to be lower. That might be considered delusional as well.

But the real problem here is the idea that reducing energy use will save the planet. Implicit in that statement is there is some amount of energy use that will not harm the planet. I doubt this is true, and I further doubt that we know or can discover what that level is. Ms. Lucas uses the editorial "we," as in "we should be making the choice." As I have mentioned in the past, the use of the word "we" is synonymous with "government." Ms. Lucas is appealing to government to force us to use less energy on an absolute level.

I am pretty sure most Americans have had enough government intervention into their lives. Likely they will bristle at yet another top-down approach to addressing these concerns. they will certainly object to expensive little cracker boxes to drive, the central regulation of their home thermostat, the changes to farming needed to produce more efficient crops, the curtailment of the manufacture of steel, and a thousand other things that would be impacted by absolute reductions in energy.

But the US is only part of the problem. There's a whole world out there, including developing nations who are pushing to finally enter the 21st century. They are the dirtiest nations in on the planet. Who is going to tell them they have to remain in the 1900s? What governing body is going to crack down on them? 

Read on:
---------------------------------------

I would like to challenge the assumption that renewable energy sources are preferable alternatives for us in Montana. Both wind and solar have sincere problems that need to be addressed, including the huge amounts of land they take up and their inability to run consistently. When we talk about systematically replacing fossil fuels for wind and solar, we are living in a delusion.

Instead of worrying so much about the type of energy we use, we should be making the choice to reduce our energy consumption overall. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy will not make us greener if we keep consuming at our current rates. What we really need to do is make the choice to reduce the amount of energy we use in our everyday lives, regardless of where it comes from.

Monica Lucas - Bozeman

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

How to suck at your religion - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this. I'll post the comic B.R. linked to, and then the FB discussion that resulted.
--------------------------




































































Me: B.R., astounding in its hypocrisy, stereotyping, and construction of straw men. But of course, I'm now set up. Simply by me criticizing it demonstrates my intolerance and narrow mindedness.

B.R.: Not at all, you're free to criticize it. I'd rather enjoy this cartoon with a realistic grain of salt than ignorantly pledge myself to every word. Would you care to share how you think it's hypocritical, and how it creates straw men? I agree that it utilizes stereotypes for the sake of extra laughs.

J.B.: Agree with Rich. Balance: some religious people are shitty. Also, some non-religious people are equally as shitty.

J.B.:  And actually, from the completely non-scientific sample group of "people I encounter regularly," I know far more argumentative, hateful, asshole atheists than I do argumentative, hateful, asshole religious folk.

J.M.: B.R. - picking up on Rich's comment, I would say that it goes far beyond mere stereotypin and picks up the most outrageous versions of 'fundy' fundamentalism and blind adherence in most of the religions depicted, which is perhaps why he arrives at the conclusion that those who are religious shouldn't ever share their beliefs with others.
I did, however, chuckle at the liberal/conservative discourse lampooning.

B.R.: Oh dear me - have I brought out the centrist spirit in my Facebook brethren? Success!

B.K.: Seems like a pretty noncontroversial list of ways in which organized religion can, very broadly speaking, make societies more intolerant, violent, and repressive. I think Rich points out why satire can be so unhelpful to dialogue, though. The vulgarity, absurdity and hyperbole contained in the comic is all humorous to someone already sympathetic to the message (like me), but for someone like Rich, it's immediately offputting.

B.R.: J.M - The wildly exaggerated speech bubbles and outlandishly-arrived-at conclusions are totally characteristic of The Oatmeal. I love his humor, but the messages often negates themselves by choosing short-attention-span laughs over committing to accurate representations.

Me: 1) It presumes to judge how people suck at their religion... by pointing out how bad it is to judge people. 2) The Catholic church was simply adhering to the current science, the Ptolemic view, at the time Galileo presented his theory. 3) Everyone chooses their religion or lack of same. That doesn't make the choice bad. 4) Parents impart a universe of perspectives on every conceivable subject. Why shouldn't they also impart religious perspectives? 5) The ones I see most fixated on sex is the political left. 6) it is ironic the comic criticizes religious people for sharing their faith perspective while engaging in precisely the same thing itself. 7) Everyone believes crazy shit about stuff (itself a judgment, by the way) 8.) People vote for good and bad reasons all the time. Like, say, voting for someone because he is black... Then at the end the author makes his own pronouncements about the nature of life, apparently unaware that he is doing the very same thing he accuses others of doing...

B.R.: Well put, B.K.. I'd like to think I would at least enjoy the inverse/pro-religion version of this cartoon, but I'll have to wait til I see one to monitor my own reaction. Rich, have you seen any writing or cartoons that would be a satiric complementary opposite to this one?

Me: I'm going to post the comic on my blog with expanded commentary. Then I think I might insert my own dialogue into the comic and see how that works. Haven't decided.

B.K.: Hi Rich. Thanks for taking time to deconstruct the comic. I'd just like to point out that the author's 'pronouncements about the nature of life' are based on objective reality, which tells us that we're living on earth, we're all going to die, that's scary, and that religion plays a powerful role in helping people cope with that. He's accusing others of imposing their own subjective spiritual beliefs on others - so categorically speaking, he's not being hypocritical here.

J.L.: Yeah, I actually usually really like the Oatmeal. But I think religion is his humorist's Achilles heel, as it were, for all the reasons Rich pointed out above.

Me: Brian, thanks. Those pronouncements are hardly objective reality. Or perhaps you can objectively prove the metaphysical opinion that we are completely powerless, helpless, and insignificant, or that anyone's religion should prove its value according to his criteria?

B.K.:  The only other two things i'd like to point out are that: defending the Catholic church in their handling of Galileo because they were 'adhering to the current science' is problematic. Galileo was no saint, and basically forced the Church to jail him, but there's no way to defend the Catholic Church during the Renaissance. An excellent text for this era is The Sleepwalkers, by Arthur Koestler - also offers a ton of context about Copernicus, Kepler, and how many of the astronomers of that time interacted with Catholicism and the church. In reference to the political left being fixated on sex, I think you're referring to the left being more socially liberal and accepting of sex and sexuality in the public sphere, which is true. The artist is referring to the political right's legislation of sexuality (abstinence-only education, anti-sodomy laws, etc.) The joke he's trying to make is that the Christian right tries to control the sexual lives of consenting adults through legislation, because they are 'obsessed' with enacting laws based on biblical attitudes. He's also implying that they themselves are fighting their own sexual repression by repressing others - once again, referring to his consistent theme of imposing subjective beliefs on others.

Me: I simply pointed out the church, as the political and spiritual authority, defended the status quo of science. It seems you want to evaluate the political environment of the day using contemporary standards. That would be a mistake. It doesn't make the church's actions right. But it is far from the intolerant anti-science caricature imposed on it by less than thoughtful skeptics.

"Accepting of sex and sexuality in the public sphere..." is certainly an innocuous characterization of a far more insistent activity. I can't think of even the most foaming-at-the-mouth religionist ever obsessing about what people should or should not do in their bedrooms in a way that the Left does.

B.K.: Hi Rich. Of course I can't objectively prove anything metaphysical - that would be a contradiction in terms. The author does get hyperbolic here, for sure - but I have to say, when I contemplate the vastness of the universe, my dominant feelings are ones of insignificance and smallness.

B.K.: I think the left definitely does obsess, not about what people should or should not do in their bedrooms, but what all people should have the right to do.

B.K.: In regards to the Catholic Church, I take issue with any organization that brutally impedes human progress, whether it be scientific or social, in order to maintain its own power structure. You can find plenty of those in any era (which should render any claims of moral relativism moot) and most of them are religious institutions. And I agree that the 'intolerant anti-science caricature' imposed on Catholicism is usually simplistic and unhelpful.

L.W.: Not obsessing about what people do in their bedrooms is easy enough if neither you nor the people you know can still, in many places, be excluded from niceties of civic life taken for granted by the comfortable middle if word of your proclivities were to get out. I don't think that "the Left" (whatever that is) obsesses over sex and sexuality so much as it is aware, largely as a function of proximity, that otherwise ostensibly harmless proclivities can have material and political consequences unless shrouded in secrecy . . . and pretty much any useful sense of the word "liberal" is all but antithetical to any useful sense of the word "secrecy."

I agree that no religion should ever have to answer for its beliefs. Religionists, like anyone else, should be judged according to action. Whether a belief system or its keepers should be called to account for actions done in its name is probably a subject outside the scope of this discussion, but generally, I'm not for policing thought.

I'm not sure everyone--or anyone--entirely chooses religion or irreligion. It seems to me that so far as religion is a matter of belief, it is not chosen. Belief is the philosophical position of holding a posit to be true; one cannot hold true something one finds either counter-intuitive or, based on his or her understanding of the facts, counter-factual. I cannot simply "decide" to believe that I am a naked mole rat, and simply ignore evidence to the contrary (though I could proclaim such belief, and others could evaluate for themselves whether I am serious). Some posits have less recourse to empirical data (existence or non-existence of deity or other unifying metaphysical principle), but it still seems to me that one is reading the data, even if that data is intuitive (say, a core temperament that sees the universe as ordered vs. one that sees it as chaotic; all faith, like all hypothesis, is, at core, made entirely of "hunch").

L.W.: Oh, and I think the strip is funny, patently one-sided, and deliberately offensive. If there's such a thing as comedy that manages the first without resorting to the latter two, I've never seen, heard, or read it (and I've seen, heard, and read an awful lot). Comedy is made out of cruelty, and is probably the most subjectively apprehended qualities in all of art.

Me: "...but what all people should have the right to do." There's a right to sex? Astounding.

It's interesting that the Left seems only interested in their version of sexual freedom, with a mandatory celebration by everyone of those choices, but will happily tell us all how much taxes are fair, what temperature we should keep our houses, what firearms we can and cannot possess, how much income is too much, and what type of light bulbs we must buy. Whew. I'm so glad we can fuck who we want, as long as the government approves of the rest of our lives...

L.W.: Frankly, if you're fucking the right person, the rest of that can seem pretty insignificant. And if it doesn't, well, follow the line of reasoning.

In all (or at least some) seriousness, there's no right to sex because there are no rights at all except what we enumerate to be a right. That is, the one and only reasonable basis on which I've ever heard anyone argue against the right to sex could (and probably should) apply to any and all rights. Rights are yielded. You have a right because I, and a good number of others, are kind enough not to kill you, and if anyone were to lack such munificence, well, that right is at the heart of pretty much every social contract, so we tend to collectively suppress any urge that threatens that right (though we may disagree, in some cases, as to when that right is truly threatened and how it should be enforced; see disagreements regarding abortion or the death penalty). As the lion recognizes no right to life on the part of the gazelle, I yield no right of life to the grass-fed cow; I yield that right to my brethren for numerous reasons, one being that I have reached a conclusion via moral reasoning that killing is wrong ... which is not the reason that I think it should be illegal. After all, I've also reasoned that incest and listening to the Eagles are morally wrong, but I would never suggest that they should be limited by legislation, and actually object to those cases in which they are.

In any case, I hold that there is a right to sex because I recognize and cherish such a right morally; my argument that this right should be legally defended is based, on the other hand, on an argument from civic utility, i.e., that those civilizations are most likely to survive where citizens have the maximum right to moral self-determination that is possible without exercise of such interfering with similar rights in others.

Because the consequences of some actions are levied upon individuals other than the consenting participants, one can differentiate between a proscription that is strictly and only a matter of moral reasoning and one that speaks to some empirically demonstrable consequence to someone other than participants. Not everything in the latter category is likely to be regulated, of course, and the selection of which should be and how these proscriptions will be enforced will, again, vary.

T.K.: It REALLY shouldn't ever be necessary in a rational discussion to spell out the difference between controlling the love lives of consenting adults vs. controlling taxes, wealth, energy usage, and the distribution of lethal weapons, but the last four are justifiable on the grounds that they all have enormous, far-reaching social and economic consequences. Some people believe that's true of the first one, too, but those tend to be the folks who believe in talking snakes, 800 year-old men, and guys who could raise others from the dead, walk on water, make food magically appear, and heal sick people and yet were never mentioned in the writings of any civilization except for a small population of bronze-age goatherds.

B.K.: aaaand here comes Tim like a lion riding a god damn pegasus.

T.K.: 1) You have no business comparing fundamentalists, who condemn people's lifestyles solely on the basis of superstition with no provable facts whatsoever to those who criticize and try to block these actions from becoming public policy. Yes, okay, fine. I'm "judging" them for what they're doing. I think it's bad. But it's because any idiot knows that people and society both function better when everyone is afforded the same opportunities. Those are the grounds on which I make MY moral judgments. The preacher's is based on the belief that a supernatural force will punish us if people engage in something that almost 1500 other species on earth do.

2) Yeah, "adhering to the current science" wouldn't have involved a trial by the inquisition and sentencing Galileo to live the rest of his life under house arrest. And don't try to tell me their dogmatic persecution of the man was because they were super into Ptolemy.

3) That's a fair point. I do think religion, when taught properly, can serve as an excellent moral framework. And it's easier to teach than facts, too. Parents should pass their knowledge on to their children, and religion is one way this can be done.

4) I think he's mainly criticizing the inability of some people to distinguish what, in their collection of knowledge, is based on fact. But to be fair, it's an ability that many do not have and that none have mastered.

5) The political left is fixated on the government having a reasonable attitude regarding people's personal lives because the political right is constantly trying to manipulate and limit them! Trust me, as soon as they let it go, we'll let it go.

6) How many evolutionary biologists have come to your door, Rich?

7) There's gradients of crazy. Some people think my belief that cats and dogs will evolve full sentience and begin demanding civil rights is crazy, but at least it's possible, unlike fitting two of every species on earth on a boat a quarter the size of the Titanic.

8 ) He's not saying nobody does it, he's saying it's a bad thing to do. And in the process he criticizes both sides of the aisle. So you agree with him.

I'm assuming you're referring to the "keep it to yourself" part in your last bit. In that case, I'll recast a previous point: You could get most atheists to "keep it to themselves", and you wouldn't even need religious people to do the same. They just need to stop trying to fuck with our governments and rights based on their favorite books of fairy tales. That would be enough for me.

L.W.: I would go even further and say that I do not want anyone to "keep it to themselves." My journey from the Catholicism of my youth to the atheism of my college years to Spinoza's naturalistic pantheism to [G/g]nosticism to Bruno's panpsychism to Nichiren Buddhism (though, for me, this Buddhism is largely a mode of practice; Bruno's writings in Expulsion of the Triumphant Beast and Cause, Principle, & Unity still best describe my cosmology, though they are well matched by T'ien T'ai's concept of Ichinen Sanzen) has been, for me, an exciting one, and I'd be happy to discuss it with others, as well as listening to what others have to say of whatever religion (or whatever flavor of irreligion ;)) forms their personal moral and/or metaphysical bedrock.

The problems that arise, in my experience, are that reaching different conclusions given more or less similar data is all too often treated as an affront to a given belief; that attempts to subject factual claims (as opposed to speculative metaphysical posits) to the evidentiary rigours usually required for such is taken as an attempt to falsify, rather than an attempt to get all parties to recognize the inherently subjective and intuitive nature of religious inquiry; and there's all too often a failure on the parts of many (on both sides of the aisle) to distinguish between the kind of guidance that is appropriate for the family or the community from which one may voluntarily egress (which can, will, probably should contain all manner of complex, abstract, subjective reasoning) and which is appropriate for broad governance (which should be kept as "objective" as possible, which is to say, should satisfy the largest possible cross section of subjective interests by offering recourse to the measurable, the experimentally repeatable, the factually verifiable--the least imperfect of our inevitably imperfect methods of "knowing").

Me: "...like a lion riding a god damn pegasus." More like a hippo defending his little pond. I figured it wouldn't take long for the hostility to escalate. There's nothing like pointing out the hypocrisy of those who wag their finger at religion.

L.W.: Two observations:

First, people who gather up their toys and leave at the first sign of teasing will generally move those inclined to tease to, well, heavier teasing.

Second, those who complain most of online hostility, in my experience, respond more often to hostility than to more measured attempts to engage, will often even go so far as to shun such honest attempts and read hostility in them when none is on offering while taking time to answer the obvious heckler. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, probably. I just find it interesting when those claiming to be honest brokers treat honest questions (and yes, honest criticisms) as though they're rhetorical traps or pointless distractions.

I'm curious, Rich ... Do you see ANY value in recognizing a useful difference in application between moral reasoning and legal reasoning, between factual assertions and metaphysical posits, and so on? Do you not see ANY complicity on the part of religionists (of which I'm inclined to say I am one) in fomenting discord between the believer and the non-believer (or other-believer)?

Me: Who is "gathering up their toys?" Sorry, Lyam, the statement "...solely on the basis of superstition with no provable facts whatsoever..." is pure hostility and anti-intellectual.

Your curiosity about (...) is a matter that has not yet been discussed. Yes, I see value in recognizing a useful difference in (...).

Do I not see "ANY complicity?" Up until your intervention in the conversation, the topic of discussion was the rhetorical flaws of this comic. We weren't discussing religionists' complicity in anything.

L.W.: "The ones I see most fixated on sex is the political left."
"it is ironic the comic criticizes religious people for sharing their faith perspective while engaging in precisely the same thing itself."
"People vote for good and bad reasons all the time. Like, say, voting for someone because he is black... Then at the end the author makes his own pronouncements about the nature of life, apparently unaware that he is doing the very same thing he accuses others of doing..."

All before I entered the conversation, Rich, and all speaking to the conflicts between the religious and the (ostensibly) irreligious that give birth both to this comic and the posts on your page insisting, say, that public schools are, by and large, indoctrinating our children with secular/liberal viewpoints. Whether you discuss things in terms of complicity is immaterial; complicity is worth establishing so both sides have a mutual baseline understanding that this conflict is perhaps endemic to the existence of multiple viewpoints in a pluralistic (by design) society.

We all view subjects through epistemic filters; the best we can hope for is to be able to look at every subject through filters other than our own, even if we don't quite trust what we see under those circumstances. Changing the filter is not tantamount to changing the subject.

L.W.: For some reason, Rich, we always end up arguing about HOW we argue, or about whether or not our respective thoughts on the matter are even on topic. So I'm going to make a good faith effort to rectify this by breaking down what I see as your basic position and responding to it.

Rich: The comic in question indulges in stereotypes and straw men, and practices the intolerance against which it supposedly rails.

L.W.: Agreed! Of course, all art relies on types and archetypes; the distance to stereotypes is not far. This is particularly true of comedy; one cannot mock that of which one is truly and fully tolerant. I'm not sure one can count on art, particularly comedy--both the most democratic and the most controversial of all art forms--to reach anyone other than the "converted"; the rare work that does is uniquely and impressively subversive.

In any case, there's little value in addressing any isolated work born of the very real and constant conflict between various religious and/or irreligious factions in modern society and in our culture in particular without addressing that conflict itself--its roots, its character, our hopes for its future.

Another question that you may find more on-topic: Is there an example of a comedic work, from either side of this debate, that does a better, more conciliatory job of illustrating the conflict and/or outlining a possible solution?

T.K.: Just because the comic might indulge in some of the things it accuses the people it criticizes of doesn't mean it's wrong.

Me: Hypocrisy is wrong.

B.K.: Rich - these are two compatible statements. I'm wondering if you're willfully misunderstanding Tim here. Obviously when he says wrong he means 'true.' Whereas when you say 'wrong' you mean 'bad'. Also, I would love to see you respond to some of Lyam's discussion points, especially concerning online hostility. "I figured it wouldn't take long for the hostility to escalate": I get the sense that you're glad it did, since it confirms your biases about 'atheists' or 'the political left' or whoever it is you're identifying as the problem. I'm sorry you feel persecuted. See if you can't take the conversation in a constructive direction. Finding a more appropriate comedic work (by your standards) for discussion, as Lyam suggested, would be a nice start.

Me: Brian, we were all having a respectful, constructive conversation until approximately 15 hours ago. I quoted the offending statement, but I note that rather than ask the gentleman in question to restrain himself, you go after me. Why might that be? And why is it my burden to change the direction of the conversation when I did not alter its direction in the first place?

My original thesis is that this comic contains "hypocrisy, stereotyping, and construction of straw men," an observation nearly everyone has agreed with in some fashion. Now you assert that Tim believes the comic to be "true." Well, I happen to disagree. Whatever. I see no virtue that can be derived from a hypocritical, stereotypical, straw-men-laden presentation.

I am never glad when people do negative things, even when those things are expected. I simply noted the bad manners, I do not feel persecuted. I want a debate of ideas, which seems to be fairly difficult to find amongst the political left. Ben has been one of the few who fits the bill. We rarely agree, but we listen to each other.

Me: Lyam, what do you think is the core nature of the conflict between religious and non-religious persons/entities?